Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Wild Hoss]

I was thinking more along the lines of Ben and Casey Affleck

We do not discuss Batfleck. Batfleck is dead to us.

[Wild Hoss]

Too far?

[Dr. Strangelove]

First, I don't think the Constitution covers gay folks as a protected class. Second, I don't think that was the issue in Oregon. I believe Oregon law specifically covers gay folks. Third, I'm all for Oregon having the right to pass laws as they see fit. Federalism and such. Fourth, I'm agnostic as to the relgious-freedom argument -- I can see both sides. Fifth, what bothers me is the fine itself/damages award. That strikes me as grossly disproportionate.

I disagree with the law, but, as I said Oregon can Oregon. And North Carolina can North Carolina.

I'd agree the fine seems excessive. Maybe $10,000 for every incident would be more appropriate? Or proportioned to the actual business?

Does the Constitution cover ANY protected class? It's the '64 Civil Rights Act that created the idea, right? And gays weren't included in that. Let's say the process was followed instead of imposed on high from a judge's seat. A Senator proposes an Amendment to the Civil Rights Act to include gays as a protected class. Would you oppose that?

[AlabamAlum]

Too far.

[iam416]

Does the Constitution cover ANY protected class?

Not specifically. The equal protection clause in the 14th A is the Constitutional basis and that's where the notion of "protected classes" derives. At the time it was pretty clearly aimed at protecting black folks. Over time the Court's jurisprudence has developed to treat race/national origin under strict scrutiny -- meaning a law/ state action that specifically treats persons differently based on race must have really goddamn good, proven reason behind it. Sex gets intermediate scrutiny -- recognizing that laws may treat women/men different for credible reasons. Other classes aren't so much scrutinized.

A Senator proposes an Amendment to the Civil Rights Act to include gays as a protected class. Would you oppose that?

No, I probably support it. I'd definitely support a version akin to intermediate scrutiny. So, with important stuff there's no discrimination (hiring, etc.), but with more trivial things you can start to balance religious interests (I can't, e.g., imagine compelling the Catholic Church or a Mosque to perform gay marriages). More importantly, not only would I support it, I'd love the notion that advocates are addressing the issue through the intended political process. The process matters a great deal to me, DSL.

[froot loops]

Count me in on Team Jep.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Interesting article on voters in rural Kentucky who don't want Obamacare repealed but overwhelmingly voted Trump anyways.

1) Kentucky and West Virginia are the two states that saw uninsured levels drop the farthest

2) Nearly everyone who voted Trump believed he won't keep his word when it comes to repeal. Or he'll at least keep the parts of the law that benefit them personally.

3) Obamacare simply not a huge factor in their vote.

4) Far from being ignorant, nearly everyone they spoke to wasn't fooled by the Kentucky state government's effort to hide that the program they were signing up for was in fact part of Obamacare.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump

[froot loops]

If Paul Ryan gets his way, they are in a for a rude awakening.

Also, it kind of lays waste to this sentiment that being on assistance or getting healthcare or food stamps creates some permanent majority for one side or the other.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yesterday Vanity Fair magazine posted a highly negative review of the restaurant in Trump Tower

Trump was supposed to hold a press conference today, to discuss his plans for divesting his financial ties. He cancelled it and postponed it to an unknown date next year citing being 'too busy' to do it now. But he DID have time to read Vanity Fair and respond to their review

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/809383989018497024[/ame]

THIS is the President of the United States

[froot loops]

That restaurant review was highly entertaining, it was masterful troll job. Talent would be proud.

[entropy]

[hack]

"Grill(e)" was friggin hilarious every time, and, hard to imagine a serious steakhouse with two wine choices. But, seriously, send someone who can actually spot a filet mignon, so you can skewer him with the actual facts instead of with your witty writer. Sure doesn't look like it to me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

LOL

[ame]https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/809472667506081792[/ame]

[hack]

LOL. Today, of all days. I hope we get a steady stream of Trump Grill(e) reviews.

Another thing great about it was that the writer noticed the menus had different items on them.

[The Oracle]

For you hack....

https://www.yelp.com/biz/trump-grill-new-york?osq=trump+grille